Canon EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM review – Straight from the top drawer

In terms of outright performance, the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM lens from Canon is right at the top of the tree. Along with the Mark II version, it ranks as the best performing long focal length lens ever tested by DxOMark. When mated to an EOS 5D Mark II, it ranks as one of the top five sharpest lenses, only beaten by its Mark II version and much shorter focal length lenses.

In terms of resolution across the frame, the lens is very homogenous. In other words there is no real drop off from the centre to the edges of the frame. No matter what aperture you choose to shoot at, be it wide-open at f/2.8 or stopped down to f/11 the lens performs almost identically. It’s only when the aperture is really closed down, beyond f/11, that the quality can start to drop of. Even so, by f/32, although the quality has fallen, the sharpness is still even right across the frame.

Lens vignetting, while not perfect, is also well controlled. At the maximum aperture there is a slight tendency to vignette at the edges, showing a drop of 0.3EV 40% out from the centre and -1EV at the very edges. At f/4, the vignetting is reduced further still, showing a drop of -0.3EV 84% of the way from the centre and -0.5EV at the very edges. From f/5.6 onwards, there is no measurable vignetting anywhere across the frame.

The other major areas of lens performance also produce very good results. At every aperture, Chromatic aberration is very well controlled leading to almost completely homogenous field maps right across the frame – put simply, there is none that is appreciably measurable or that would be strongly visible in a final image.

Equally, the distortion is also very well controlled. Long lenses are usually susceptible to pin cushion distortion where straight lines will appear to curve inwards slightly. However, there is no such distortion here, even out to the very edges of the frame.

Further readings for the Canon EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM review – Straight from the top drawer

To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.

Comments

incorrections

There are several incorrections in the review. For example sharpness (P-Mpix) score is confused with overall DXomark Score.

For example:Attached to the APS-C sensored EOS 7D, the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM once again puts in a strong performance, scoring 16.7P-Mpix, relative to the EOS 7D’s resolution of 18megapixels. Equally, the Pentax lens scores very well, managing 15.0P-Mpix compared to the 16.3megapixels available on the K-5. Overall, this shows the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM is as good as it’s made out to be, but in this comparison, the Pentax on a K-5 is not that far behind.

Re: incorrections

Re: incorrections

Furthermore in the [url=http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/With-new-STM-technology-does-Canon-s-updated-18-135mm-still-deliver/Comparisons]review[/url] of Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-f5.6 IS STM lens

In comparison section:

Quote:

Tested on the flagship APS-C DSLRs from Canon and Nikon, the 7D and D7000, these two Super Zooms achieve remarkably similar results. Overall we can say they’re the same optically although the Nikon version hits a DxOMark Score of 13 just nudging out the Canon with 12.

The screenshot shows us not D7000 but D300 with the score 10 not 13 as mentioned.

Re: incorrections

Re: incorrections

There is no line for EOS M but it is mentioned in legend in Samsung NX200 [url=http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Samsung-NX200-A-hybrid-with-purpose/Comparisons]review[/url].[img]http://cdn.dxomark.com/itext/review/camera/samsung-nx200/03.jpg[/img]

Re: incorrections

Re: incorrections

Quote:

When it comes to the camera technology, HTC has been even bolder and in the midst of camera phone megapixel race, with 12 or 13-megapixels becoming the norm for new flagship Smartphones, the HTC One utilizes a 1/3” sensor with just a 4-megpixel 2688x1520 pixel resolution.

Re: incorrections

Re: incorrections

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4GED review:

First of all thank you for review.

1).Add space between F/4G and ED in title of review.

2).In paragraph:

Quote:

As one would hope for a lens costing a cool $7,000, the AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II performs well, achieving an overall DxOMark Score of 25. Sharpness isn’t up to the fixed focal length equivalents (which vary from 28-25P-Mpix over the same range) but it has very good sharpness across the frame at full aperture throughout the zoom range, though peak performance is at 250mm f/4.

28-25 is actually a DxOMark score, but not sharpness score (which is 17P-Mpix).

Re: incorrections

Hello!

Thanks for your interest in DxOMark. Here are some explanations on the following sentence:

« Sharpness isn’t up to the fixed focal length equivalents (which vary from 28-25P-Mpix over the same range) but it has very good sharpness across the frame at full aperture throughout the zoom range, though peak performance is at 250mm f/4”

What we mean is that the 200mm f/2 prime has a sharpness score of 28 P-Mpix and the 400mm f/2,8 prime has 25 (on a D800), to be compared with the 17 P-Mpix of the 200-400mm f/4. Our apologies if it’s no clear on our review.